It is gratifying to see that Michael Hulley, President Jacob Zuma’s personal lawyer, today announced that the President has finally provided a list to the Secretary of Cabinet “containing any gifts, benefits or financial interests held or received either by him or by any family member, as required in terms of the Executive Ethics Code”. In a statement, Hulley claimed (rather implausibly) that the delay in submitting this list resulted from uncertainty about the nature of the disclosure to be made, as well as the extent to which declarations of family members were required.
In deciding whether to accept or retain any gift, the President has applied the same high ethical standard he otherwise would have in respect of other members of the Executive. In any event, whilst these gestures are highly appreciated and of immense sentimental significance, none of the gifts are of extraordinary monetary value.
The attendant delay in completing this task responsibly has created an opportunity for some to unfairly speculate without substance. The President does not hold any directorship, membership or shareholding in any company, either public or private, nor is he associated in any way therewith.The suggestions to the contrary are devoid of any truth and are regrettable.
As I pointed out before, section 6 of the Code states that like all other Cabinet members, the President must disclose his own financial interests and those of his spouses, permanent companions and dependent children including: shares and other financial interests in companies and other corporate entities; sponsorships and their sources and “other assistance” and its sources; ”gifts and hospitality” and its sources; “other benefits” and their sources; foreign travel paid by a sponsor and the description of the sponsor; the land and property owned; and the pension owned, its sources and value.
Section 7 of the Code also requires the President to record some financial interests in the secret part of the register. These include: the value of interests in a corporate entity other than a private or public company; the details of foreign travel when the nature of a visit requires those details to be confidential; the details, including the address, of any private residence; the value of any pension; details of the financial interests of a member’s spouse, permanent companion or dependent child; and the member’s liabilities.
One would assume that in order to demonstrate that the President has nothing to hide, the Secretary of Cabinet will immediately make public that part of the declaration that is not deemed secret by the Code. Although there is no legal obligation to do so, one would also assume that given the lingering questions about President Zuma’s financial dealings, he would also volunteer to make public the private aspects of the declaration – at the very least to the extent that it deals with his own finances. Such a gesture may well silence his critics and will allay fears about the extent to which private benefactors have been bankrolling the President and his family.
The public part of the declaration only relates to gifts and benefits given to President Zuma’s since he took office, and would thus not give any indication of the President’s current financial health and the extent to which private benefactors had bankrolled Zuma (if at all) before he took office. It would also not give any indication of the President’s financial liabilities.
The last point is important, as it relates directly to the prosecution and conviction of Schabir Shaik. As I wrote before, the President had told Parliament in 2003 that the more than R1 million he had received from Shaik was a “loan” and therefore need not have been declared. The court found that Zuma would not have been able to repay this “loan” using his salary as Deputy President. Given the fact that Zuma was unemployed for most of the period since the court made this finding, the characterization of this “loan” by Zuma at this stage would be of cardinal importance.
If the President has not listed this amount as a liability, it would mean either that he had paid off the “loan,” or that he now agrees that this was not a loan at all, or that Shaik had forgiven the loan. All three possibilities pose serious questions about the President’s finances.
If he now claims that he had paid off the “loan”, one might well ask who had given Zuma more than R1 million to do so, what the relationship of this benefactor is to Zuma and whether the President has done any favors for this person or whether the person has received any government contracts.
If Shaik had forgiven him the “loan”, then one would have to ask why he had done so and whether the President could now lawfully pardon Shaik. If Shaik had indeed forgiven the “loan”, a question may arise about whether this was done to “buy” a pardon – something that would make a pardon unlawful.
If Zuma now agrees that the money was given as a gift and that it was never a loan at all, he would be conceding that he had defrauded Parliament when he had claimed in 2003 that the money Shaik had given him had indeed been a loan.
It is commendable that in his statement Hulley says that “as Head of State and Government, the President is most mindful of government’s commitment to transparent governance and accountability, to which principles he remains committed in leading government”. These fine sentiments would remain no more than empty words unless the President takes us into his confidence and tells the nation exactly what the state of his financial affairs are.
Be careful Prof.
You may just be accused of copying and pasting.
Can’t wait to sww what the President listed, especially the Shaik part of it.
sww+see
Actually, the charges against Mr Zuma concluded that there was more than R4m paid by Mr Shaik to Mr Zuma over the whole period, including the time of the trial of Mr Shaik.
It would be interesting to see what sum of money the Zuma charges identified as having been paid by 2003 when Mr Zuma made the declaration of the “loan” to Parliament.
To state the “bleedin’ obvious”, it may well be that the money loan declared by Mr Zuma was exactly that identified int he Shaik trial, but substantially less than that identified in the Zuma charges for the same time period.
Oh not at all boring John person! This is far more interesting. In fact, the issue of the Shaik money must be probed because if we can’t get him on lying, his excuse might just fall within the designated acts of insolvency!
But the weird thing is, you can’t just draw up a declaration that includes multiple spouses, 25+ rugrats and and and since Monday, so how long has Hulley had this list, how comprehensive is it and can we cross reference the things that the various Mrs Zuma’s have already confessed to????
Mpho
Are you suggesting that Zuyma and Hulley would lie ?
Well I never !
Perhaps I question in ignorance. What information and details within the disclosure will be made available to the public? Who or what will clarify its honesty?
Law has never been Michael Hulley’s strong point. Look at his varsity academic transcript and you’ll see what I mean.
[...] Great start President Zuma, but there are many more questions to be answered – Constitutionall… [...]
Is the secretary of cabinet required to publish the register within a certain amount of time? Seems a bit pointless if no one can look at the thing.
C’mon Prof et al. The President answered. He also stated that he does not hold any shares or is a director in any company. Just admit, that it was unfortunate the he, the President that is, was incorrect not to have submitted on time, but given the submission you, that is Prof, was equally alarmist. If you cannot admit that then Prof it would not be incorrect if I then start to conclude that you have political objectives and agenda, so it is not the law (or is it The Law) that compells you but a particular political objective.
Donovan is right.
I demand that arch-hypocrite Madam Zille tell us how she can afford to transform her face every three weeks!
“The president does not hold any directorship, membership or shareholding in any company, either public or private, nor is he associated in any way therewith. The suggestions to the contrary are devoid of any truth and are regrettable.”
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/8d0d1e747ad94cc69f88bd6a91a42f2d/10-03-2010-10-21/Lawyer_Anomalies_delayed_Zuma_list
Nice to know.
That ought to have taken no more than half a day to compile if it was done very slowly.
It unfortunately sounds like our President broke the law because he could!
I’ve been waiting patiently for this to reach the surface. Now The Economist observed that SA’s Achilles’ heel is the {white } tax payers.
See : http://www.beeld.com/Content/Rubrieke/Gasrubriekskrywers/2149/cab263dbbf004f6590c1738a93e5c982/10-03-2010-10-11/%E2%80%99n_Nuwe_soort_aktivisme
That is local rates they were talking about – those are withheld on big scale allready. But the braaivleis talk at this stage is income tax – from what I hear it’s about to spill over – in the following years it’s gonna become big news. You heard it first time here….
Donovan, you have a rather eccentric view of democracy and accountability. The declaration of interests is the BEGINNING – not the end – of the Ethics Code process. Once such a declaration has been made, the media and others have a right and duty to scrutinise the declaration to see whether it is truthful and to see whether there are any potential conflicts of interest. That is where democdacy and accountability starts – not ends. You might blindly believe that as long as a politician has said that he has declared all his or her interests and that there are no conflicts of interests we have a duty to believe him or her. I would say that is naive in the extreme and rather dangerous for the proper functioning of a democracy. Democracy operates on scepticism, not on blind faith. The latter works better in a religious setting.
Donovan says:
March 11, 2010 at 0:52 am
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that our President is above the law.
Where he does comply we all have to be grateful!
No, Prof, liberalism teaches that democracy can only work on scepticism, because of a belief in the private market. A progressive is not a liberal. I am unashamedly a progressive person. I recognise that the market does not have mine or the rest of society’s well-being in mind, but profit-making and wealth of particular individuals. The hallmarks of democracy remain mandate and accountability. But leaders are not messengers and mere representatives of views of others. For the system to work there must be a level of trust. This does not mean that there should not be a separation of powers, accountability mechanisms, transparent processes, etc. For trust to exist or be given it does not mean naivete! Being able to make individuals and institutions account is one of the most important pillars of democracy, I wonder why it is not extended to the Courts and the Reserve Bank?
Oh and by the way Henny Penny, one never stated that this is where the scrutiny should end! But, your alarmist, sensationalising views that the sky is falling, because it seemed to you that the President was not going to account because he thought he should not was what I was adressing. Given that he has accounted, we must scrutinse and check whether he has accounted correctly or not. That is how the system works, but the system won’t work if there is a massive crisis every day.
I’d be interested to ask Mr Hulley if Mr Zuma was still a director, member, beneficiary etc… of any entity after the 60 day disclosure period had expired.
It seems to me that Mr. Hulley has likely spent the past few months trying to disengage Mr. Zuma from his various interests without arousing public suspicion.
Donovan, where on earth do you fall off the bus? What does this have to do with liberalism or the private market? It has everything to do with the holding of power and the exercise of power by politicians. Openess and accountability requires scrutiny of actions and statements by politicians. Of course you might not find it problematic that president who was paid R4 million by a convicted crook and fraudster, lied about this to Parliament, and did favours for that crook and fraudster after the payment of the money, flouts the law declaring his financial interests for almost a year and you might say I am alarmist for wondering about this. However this view is both strange and danegrous. First, you are suggesting the mere fact that the President has been flouting the law and hence has not adhered to his constitutional duty to uphold the Constitution and the law is no big deal as he has now complied – one year later. However, if we cannot trust the President to adhere to the law (which he failed to do for ONE YEAR) then, for god’s sake, why should he trust him on ANYTHING? In effect you are condoning lawlessness and a flouting of rules by the highest power in the country. This is dangerous and deeply worrying. Second, given our President’s history with taking bribes, not declaring one’s financial interests for almost a year after one was supposed to do so, reminds us all that the only reason he was not charged with fraud and corruption was because it was politically expedient to drop the charges against him. The fact that you blithely wish to excuse the President’s flagrant flouting of law in the area of financial ethics, says much about the very low standards you have for any elected official (of the ANC or others as well?). Having such low standards for elected officials, sadly, suggests that one has a rather low opinion of oneself and what one as a voter deserves from elected officials. This is very far removed from the black consciousness ethic of Steve Biko and seems to reflect the success of the apartheid system which was based on the erroneous and deeply hurtful view that black people were inferior and therefore could be expected to do less, deserved less and should be held to lower standards than whites. I, for one, refuses to succumb to the tyranny and oppression of apartheid thinking and the bigotry of low expectations.
Stress is taking over or is it Madam Zille’s foot soldiers at work.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20100311094254914C286595
The overriding theme here is that people in power should lead by example. However what seems to be happening is that people who vote these officials into power feel that elected officials should be granted a pedestal which elevates them above this requirement. Why this is so I do not understand, maybe it will take some time for voters to realise that they hold (should hold?) the power in a democracy.
I am also getting tired of the fact that, when people who are involved in illegal acts are caught out, they feel that the fact they have been caught is punishment enough and no further action is necessary. If Zuma was truely not aware of the fact he needed to make these declarations he should at least fire/discipline the person in his office whose job it was to advise him on these issues.
“The president does not hold any directorship, membership or shareholding in any company, either public or private, nor is he associated in any way therewith”, Hulley said.
Does Hulley means that the president has resigned from the National Pride Trading 259 and other entities he was associated with?
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-05-15-zumas-cabinet-inc
If so, why did Thabo Masebe then did not want to be drawn into providing clear, direct and honest answers in this subject?
And why is Michael Hulley not mentioning that the president has resigned from all the legal entities he was associated with as this is public knowledge (a weekend paper in 2007 did provide list of government officials who are holding directorship positions in more than one company like Danisa Baloyi and others and Zuma was one of them who at that time was associated with two close corporations pone of which is the one cited above) so we can understand how he came “not (to) hold any directorship, membership or shareholding in any company, either public or private, nor is he associated in any way therewith”?
Goggling him, one site that could not open indicates that Cipro records only confirm that he has resigned from the Jacob Zuma Foundation but not ……..
raising questions whether or not he has indeed resigned from some of these entities – the legal CIPRO way and not the Malema and his lawyers’ way.
And if he has indeed in his declaration complied with the Ethics Code, truthfully and honestly, can this declaration pass the possible contradictions that are likely to arise if tested against his earlier lies in parliament and revelations during the Shaik case?
Michael Hulley’s attempt to justify the delay and effort to convince us that Zuma has now complied fully with the law should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is well known fact that law is not Hulley’s strong points and neither is observing law nor telling truth is part of Zuma’s culture.
@ Gwebe,
I would not immediately suspect DA foul play. If the traffic officials who arrested him can prove that he was indeed on the wrong side of the law, this will be a plus for the DA, as they will be demonstrating how the country must be governed through the constitution whereby we are all faceless before the law. Not what we are seeing in other provinces like Lipompo where Julius Malema and other politicians flout the laws as they wish while the law enforcement agencies and / or officials concerned cheer them up or play ignorant; but when it is you and I, they even invite the media to prove to the public how zero-tolerant complaint they are in their respectful field of work.
Donovan is right.
Liberals are all free market fundamentalists. (Most are racist too, but that is another issue.)
Democracy means subordinating the market to the will of the masses, represented by our leaders. The freedom of the people lies in subordination to the sovereign. The destiny of the Volk is vindicated by its trusted leaders.
Thanks.
@ Mayimele
DA foul play was just a joke. Good to hear from you again, keep on blogging. We should not only hear from you when there is a JZ mishap.
Sure Gwebs, as I have always done. I had just been consumed by other assignments that did not allow me time to participate in my favourate blog. I can see you have been very busy as usual making contributions in almost every topic discussed and raising interesting arguments. But I am back now and hope to do likewise.
I get it Fass, irony is humor. I actually had a chuckle with your post today. Usually I don’t have, unlike yourself, a funny bone, or is that a humor bone, but after reading many posts on David Bullard’s blog today, it was either laugh or cry.
As for JZ, and in your spirit I think, we certainly know from experience that our prez is a most honest and honorable man, pity no one sees that.
My apologies for previous criticisms.
Many years ago there was a radio program called ‘So maak mense’ chaired by Jan Cilliers and Esme Everade. The gist of the program was to relay to the listener – line by line – how to cook, bake and so forth. As a young lad I would watch my gran writing down what Jan and Esme had to say. I referred to it as the cookbook approach. What has this got to do this blog? Everything. A one Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder uses this approach, scanning the internet for soundbites, see: ‘democracyandhiphop.blogspot’, ‘compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=3863′. Nice try Mike. Now be brave and tell us what YOU think? I suppose it’s easy to be a google philosopher, no need to think, work hard, and so on, a kind of BEE strategy.
Andre: nice one, and here I just immediately preceding you, forgave him.
Prof I read your post above with reference to Biko.
Here is a hypothetical question. I know you are not religious from previous posts of yours. I suspect you believe in evolution. If so, do you not think that there is even the slightest slightest possibility that races evolved along different branches of the same tree at different paces ? Why are there so many scientists who suggest this ? I would say that lions are superior to tabby cats but they are both members of the same cat family. Why is it different with homo sapiens ?
Ad John Roberts:
Go and read, eg, Spencer Wells : The Journey of Man – a genetic odyssey [Princeton University Press, 2002.
It’s based on objective DNA studies. It proves that your DNA is 99.9% the same as other humans. With Black DNA “older” than yours – so you’re a descendant of Blacks – who lived some 60 000 years ago in Cameroon somewhere.
Your more recent descendants moved north to colder latitudes which resulted in skin pigment changes. Go and read the book. Don’t listen to the dominee on this point. Those old Jews who wrote the Bible creation fables knew nothing about DNA.
I take it that you’ re not judge John Roberts from Scotus?
Henri says:
March 12, 2010 at 7:52 am
“Don’t listen to the dominee on this point.”
John Roberts says “I would say that lions are superior to tabby cats but they are both members of the same cat family”.
I see tabby cats everywhere, very few lions though (even Kruger Park tourists consider themselves lucky when the see one lion).
@ Andre
Funny you should mention Esme Everard. I too learned a great deal from her, especially from the pungent irony, even biting sarcasm, that always enlived her shows.
(Of course, the true master of irony on Sprinbok Radio in those days was Dulice van den Bergh, “Hospitaal Tyd,” Mandag tot Sondag …)
Ai, this is rather nostalgic. Jan Cronje and Esme Euverard enlivened my afternoons. They came on after the story “Vrou uit die Vreemde” and Wolwedans ind ie Skemer. As there was no television this was what we thought counted as entertainment. Dulcie could only be listened to if one was off sick from school or in the school holiday. The “Hospitaal Tyd” song had a very catchy tune.
Mandag tot Vrydag
Om half seve (?)
Dis musiek vir Moeder, Vader
En dogter en seun!
Daar’s ‘n lied en ‘n glimlag vir jou
In Hospitaal Tyd onthou!
(Seldom heard in the wards of Baragwanath Hospital.)
http://www.springbokradio.com/
For a journey back in time…
@Henri … no I have an ‘s” at the end of my surname.
I have read the book. It doesn’t explain though why when one group of people returned to Africa from lands that had advanced in terms of art, culture, technology et al found a people who had no wheel, roads, organization or double-storey structures. What happened to Africa ? Bear in mind that the West had seen the likes of The Renaissance artists and great architects and scholars. Nobody has been able to properly explain this. At least to me.
PS. Don’t assume a pseudonym is indicative of skin colour.